Why do people hate Liberals?

[HUGGY]

I never see a Liberal calling Obama the messiah. That only comes from Conservatives as a way to denigrate Liberals.

It is the circular logic of a republican zombie. They make it up out of thin air..they publicly say it..they repeat it...then they blame the dems for it. It's the chistofacsist's noise machine. The only mention of the word "messiah" associated with Obama comes from republican morons.

I think most dems are dissappointed in Obama's perfromance but are still thankfull we are not being led by the Bishop Morman cult leader.

As far as I can tell there will never be agreement in our government again. The repubs are so hatefull and devicive and subvert the will of America in elections. They have made so many enemies that no matter what else happens they will never be allowed to run this country again.

If you cannot respect the will of the people and spend all of your energy subverting the results of fair and open elections you will eventually be weeded out of the process.

 

[MeBelle]

Sorry, I must be blind as a bat-I did miss those emoticons. Oops.

I saw them but didn't know what they meant.
Methinks MeBelle needs to work on her delivery.

Maybe Mr Pogo needs to work on his bone

 

[Foxfyre]

It's all opinion!

Conservative opinion is that marriage and all the government benefits and tax advantages that go along with it should be restricted and limited. I believe that Americans should be free to marry whoever they want - apparently that labels me as a liberal.

On most political subjects, there is no right opinion or wrong opinion, only differences of those opinions.

The best government size and scope? A matter of opinion.

Freedom in marriage? A matter of opinion.

Defining God (or lack there of)? A matter of opinion.

The things that separate conservatives from liberals in politics is ALL a matter of opinion.

And there are valid arguments for all those 'opinions'. The right to worship as one chooses or not worship anything is not opinion. It is a policy, an unalienable right recognized by the U.S. Constitution. A hard core fact.

The Constitution never intended the federal government to be involved in marriage laws that were to be the prerogative of the state. The Constitution never intended for special federal tax benefits or penalities to be imposed on anybody, married or not, regardless of how marriage was defined, or for any other reason. That is not opinion. Those are hard core facts.

The benefits of the traditional marriage can be analyzed using hard data of affluence, child poverty, crime rates, porperty values, neighborhood stability. Not opinion. Hard core fact that has nothing to do with same sex marriage and can be evaluated on its own merit.

The best government in size and scope can be measured against the amount of freedoms we enjoy and the quantity and extent of choices and options limited to us via actions of government. We are informed by concrete documents of history what the Founders intended government to be and what it has become is visible, tangible, and obvious for anybody willing to see. Not opinion. Hard core fact.

But even when it comes to opinion--those who prefer a Mayberry USA to a Deadwood in its hellfire days, for instance--even there the obvious intent of the Founders was that the people themselves would choose what they wanted. It would not be dictated to them by the federal government. And that too is not opinion, but hard core fact.

I can't help but wonder about this paragraph and the conservative policy issued from the federal level called the Defense Of Marriage Act that was recently struck down. It appears to me that conservatives are all about changing lives from the top down when it comes to marriage.

Are you a weird conservative who actively challenged DOMA, or is DOMA an inconvenient truth about conservative ideology?

DOMA is not conservative or liberal ideology. It is a concept that people either agree with or they don't. Same as abortion or public nudity or whether there should be a creche on a courthouse lawn. Classical liberalism/modern American conservatism may or may not embrace any of the social issues, but believes it wrong for the federal government to be involved with that in any form other than to defend those who must be allowed the right to embrace whatever points of view they wish to embrace short of violating the rights of others.

I would not put my child in a school where Creationism was taught as science. Nor should I be required to. But unless those who want to teach Creationism as science are allowed to do so, then there is no freedom. Unless we the people are free to govern ourselves and form whatever sorts of society we wish to have, then the Constitution is moot. That means that those who want a Mayberry USA should be allowed to have that but it should not be able to dictate to Deadwood who wants no part of that.

THAT is the principle involved. DOMA is a separate issue that is discussed ad nauseum as a separate issue. But it is only one of thousands of concepts and issues that factor into what freedom actually is. As a free person, I should be able to embrace anything I believe fully and form societies with like minded people so long as unalienable rights are not violated. I should not be able to dictate what sort of society you and your like minded associates would choose to organize and you and yours should also leave me and mine in peace.

 

[AVG-JOE]

And there are valid arguments for all those 'opinions'. The right to worship as one chooses or not worship anything is not opinion. It is a policy, an unalienable right recognized by the U.S. Constitution. A hard core fact.

The Constitution never intended the federal government to be involved in marriage laws that were to be the prerogative of the state. The Constitution never intended for special federal tax benefits or penalities to be imposed on anybody, married or not, regardless of how marriage was defined, or for any other reason. That is not opinion. Those are hard core facts.

The benefits of the traditional marriage can be analyzed using hard data of affluence, child poverty, crime rates, porperty values, neighborhood stability. Not opinion. Hard core fact that has nothing to do with same sex marriage and can be evaluated on its own merit.

The best government in size and scope can be measured against the amount of freedoms we enjoy and the quantity and extent of choices and options limited to us via actions of government. We are informed by concrete documents of history what the Founders intended government to be and what it has become is visible, tangible, and obvious for anybody willing to see. Not opinion. Hard core fact.

But even when it comes to opinion--those who prefer a Mayberry USA to a Deadwood in its hellfire days, for instance--even there the obvious intent of the Founders was that the people themselves would choose what they wanted. It would not be dictated to them by the federal government. And that too is not opinion, but hard core fact.

I can't help but wonder about this paragraph and the conservative policy issued from the federal level called the Defense Of Marriage Act that was recently struck down. It appears to me that conservatives are all about changing lives from the top down when it comes to marriage.

Are you a weird conservative who actively challenged DOMA, or is DOMA an inconvenient truth about conservative ideology?

DOMA is not conservative or liberal ideology. It is a concept that people either agree with or they don't. Same as abortion or public nudity or whether there should be a creche on a courthouse lawn. Classical liberalism/modern American conservatism may or may not embrace any of the social issues, but believes it wrong for the federal government to be involved with that in any form other than to defend those who must be allowed the right to embrace whatever points of view they wish to embrace short of violating the rights of others.

I would not put my child in a school where Creationism was taught as science. Nor should I be required to. But unless those who want to teach Creationism as science are allowed to do so, then there is no freedom. Unless we the people are free to govern ourselves and form whatever sorts of society we wish to have, then the Constitution is moot. That means that those who want a Mayberry USA should be allowed to have that but it should not be able to dictate to Deadwood who wants no part of that.

THAT is the principle involved. DOMA is a separate issue that is discussed ad nauseum as a separate issue. But it is only one of thousands of concepts and issues that factor into what freedom actually is. As a free person, I should be able to embrace anything I believe fully and form societies with like minded people so long as unalienable rights are not violated. I should not be able to dictate what sort of society you and your like minded associates would choose to organize and you and yours should also leave me and mine in peace.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on that, Foxfyre. With the exception of Clinton signing it for compromise, and a couple of conservative blue-dogs on the left voting for it, DOMA belongs to the Republicans and the Republicans are the party of the conservatives.

Extremist Conservatives are just as interested in pushing their agenda from the top down as extremist Progressives.

The problem is extremism, exclusion and intolerance. I so look forward to the day when reasonable Conservatives are as incensed by the extremism and intolerance in their own party as they are by the intolerant whackos on the left.

 

[RKMBrown]

I can't help but wonder about this paragraph and the conservative policy issued from the federal level called the Defense Of Marriage Act that was recently struck down. It appears to me that conservatives are all about changing lives from the top down when it comes to marriage.

Are you a weird conservative who actively challenged DOMA, or is DOMA an inconvenient truth about conservative ideology?

DOMA is not conservative or liberal ideology. It is a concept that people either agree with or they don't. Same as abortion or public nudity or whether there should be a creche on a courthouse lawn. Classical liberalism/modern American conservatism may or may not embrace any of the social issues, but believes it wrong for the federal government to be involved with that in any form other than to defend those who must be allowed the right to embrace whatever points of view they wish to embrace short of violating the rights of others.

I would not put my child in a school where Creationism was taught as science. Nor should I be required to. But unless those who want to teach Creationism as science are allowed to do so, then there is no freedom. Unless we the people are free to govern ourselves and form whatever sorts of society we wish to have, then the Constitution is moot. That means that those who want a Mayberry USA should be allowed to have that but it should not be able to dictate to Deadwood who wants no part of that.

THAT is the principle involved. DOMA is a separate issue that is discussed ad nauseum as a separate issue. But it is only one of thousands of concepts and issues that factor into what freedom actually is. As a free person, I should be able to embrace anything I believe fully and form societies with like minded people so long as unalienable rights are not violated. I should not be able to dictate what sort of society you and your like minded associates would choose to organize and you and yours should also leave me and mine in peace.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on that, Foxfyre. With the exception of Clinton signing it for compromise, and a couple of conservative blue-dogs on the left voting for it, DOMA belongs to the Republicans and the Republicans are the party of the conservatives.

Extremist Conservatives are just as interested in pushing their agenda from the top down as extremist Progressives.

The problem is extremism, exclusion and intolerance. I so look forward to the day when reasonable Conservatives are as incensed by the extremism and intolerance in their own party as they are by the intolerant whackos on the left.

You are FOS. Anti-Gay is the hate and fear felt by the anti-gay crowd. Just because the democrats switch their view on gays every year does not give them the credit for being pro-gay. That the is dumbest opinion I've ever read on this board. Most conservatives did not like Romney. Romney was anti-gay rights... Hated him for that and many other reasons. Romney was a progressive liberal posing as a republican. I'm a constitutional conservative christian heterosexual and did not vote for Romney. Pull my finger jerk.

 

[jon_berzerk]

DOMA is not conservative or liberal ideology. It is a concept that people either agree with or they don't. Same as abortion or public nudity or whether there should be a creche on a courthouse lawn. Classical liberalism/modern American conservatism may or may not embrace any of the social issues, but believes it wrong for the federal government to be involved with that in any form other than to defend those who must be allowed the right to embrace whatever points of view they wish to embrace short of violating the rights of others.

I would not put my child in a school where Creationism was taught as science. Nor should I be required to. But unless those who want to teach Creationism as science are allowed to do so, then there is no freedom. Unless we the people are free to govern ourselves and form whatever sorts of society we wish to have, then the Constitution is moot. That means that those who want a Mayberry USA should be allowed to have that but it should not be able to dictate to Deadwood who wants no part of that.

THAT is the principle involved. DOMA is a separate issue that is discussed ad nauseum as a separate issue. But it is only one of thousands of concepts and issues that factor into what freedom actually is. As a free person, I should be able to embrace anything I believe fully and form societies with like minded people so long as unalienable rights are not violated. I should not be able to dictate what sort of society you and your like minded associates would choose to organize and you and yours should also leave me and mine in peace.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on that, Foxfyre. With the exception of Clinton signing it for compromise, and a couple of conservative blue-dogs on the left voting for it, DOMA belongs to the Republicans and the Republicans are the party of the conservatives.

Extremist Conservatives are just as interested in pushing their agenda from the top down as extremist Progressives.

The problem is extremism, exclusion and intolerance. I so look forward to the day when reasonable Conservatives are as incensed by the extremism and intolerance in their own party as they are by the intolerant whackos on the left.

You are FOS. Anti-Gay is the hate and fear felt by the anti-gay crowd. Just because the democrats switch their view on gays every year does not give them the credit for being pro-gay. That the is dumbest opinion I've ever read on this board. Most conservatives did not like Romney. Romney was anti-gay rights... Hated him for that and many other reasons. Romney was a progressive liberal posing as a republican. I'm a constitutional conservative and did not vote for Romney. Pull my finger jerk.

you got that right about Mitt

 

[Foxfyre]

I can't help but wonder about this paragraph and the conservative policy issued from the federal level called the Defense Of Marriage Act that was recently struck down. It appears to me that conservatives are all about changing lives from the top down when it comes to marriage.

Are you a weird conservative who actively challenged DOMA, or is DOMA an inconvenient truth about conservative ideology?

DOMA is not conservative or liberal ideology. It is a concept that people either agree with or they don't. Same as abortion or public nudity or whether there should be a creche on a courthouse lawn. Classical liberalism/modern American conservatism may or may not embrace any of the social issues, but believes it wrong for the federal government to be involved with that in any form other than to defend those who must be allowed the right to embrace whatever points of view they wish to embrace short of violating the rights of others.

I would not put my child in a school where Creationism was taught as science. Nor should I be required to. But unless those who want to teach Creationism as science are allowed to do so, then there is no freedom. Unless we the people are free to govern ourselves and form whatever sorts of society we wish to have, then the Constitution is moot. That means that those who want a Mayberry USA should be allowed to have that but it should not be able to dictate to Deadwood who wants no part of that.

THAT is the principle involved. DOMA is a separate issue that is discussed ad nauseum as a separate issue. But it is only one of thousands of concepts and issues that factor into what freedom actually is. As a free person, I should be able to embrace anything I believe fully and form societies with like minded people so long as unalienable rights are not violated. I should not be able to dictate what sort of society you and your like minded associates would choose to organize and you and yours should also leave me and mine in peace.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on that, Foxfyre. With the exception of Clinton signing it for compromise, and a couple of conservative blue-dogs on the left voting for it, DOMA belongs to the Republicans and the Republicans are the party of the conservatives.

Extremist Conservatives are just as interested in pushing their agenda from the top down as extremist Progressives.

The problem is extremism, exclusion and intolerance. I so look forward to the day when reasonable Conservatives are as incensed by the extremism and intolerance in their own party as they are by the intolerant whackos on the left.

News flash Joe, this is NOT about Republicans or Democrats. There are liberal and conservative Republicans; liberal and conservative Democrats. What is conservative/classical liberal as it is understood in America today is an idea, a concept, a conviction that in order to be free, we must first have our rights secured, and then we must be able to live our lives as we choose without interference from a central government authority.

The Founders risked all that they owned, their blood, their treasure, their loved ones, their very lives to free us from monarchs, popes, or other authorities who would assign us the rights we would have, the beliefs we were required to profess, the lifestyle we would live.

So tolerance is a two way street. To deny another his intolerance, short of denying unalienable rights, is in itself a freedom robbing intolerance. There must be as much freedom to scorn and distrust the religious, for example, as there must be freedom to scorn and distrust the Atheist. And neither should be able to require the other to adopt or respect his/her point of view, much less adopt it.

The conservative may abhor another's prejudices, but knows that freedom requires us to not interfere with the other person's prejudices except when they deny others their unalienable rights. The Westboro Baptists, for instance, are held in utter contempt, but will be left alone in their narrow minded hatefulness. They will be resisted, however, when they attempt to force that narrow minded hatefulness on others.

But even as they too condemn a group like the Westboro Baptist, the modern American liberal too often demands that others accept their version of virtue or morality. Thus they see no problem with attempting to destroy the livelihood and peace of a Rush Limbaugh or a Chick fil a or a Paula Deen when such people fail to measure up to the liberal's version of what morality and/or virtue is. There is no live and let live--no tolerance--no understanding of what real liberty is--in most of the modern liberals' world. And to make matters worse the modern day liberal is rarely consistent. They are excessively selective in who will be forced to conform or who will punished if they do not, and reserve their contempt and coercion for those with whom they do not feel ideologically compatible.

And for those of us conservatives/classical liberals who see it as a dangerous thing for government to dictate to us how we must live our lives, it is only a natural consequence that we would hold in contempt a liberalism that would also dictate to us how we must think, how we must believe, how we must speak, how we must live our lives. The contempt is not for what the liberal believes. The contempt is for what the liberal would force upon everybody else by whatever means deemed necessary.

 

[thanatos144]

People don't like liberals because they are dishonest assholes

 

[Bfgrn]

DOMA is not conservative or liberal ideology. It is a concept that people either agree with or they don't. Same as abortion or public nudity or whether there should be a creche on a courthouse lawn. Classical liberalism/modern American conservatism may or may not embrace any of the social issues, but believes it wrong for the federal government to be involved with that in any form other than to defend those who must be allowed the right to embrace whatever points of view they wish to embrace short of violating the rights of others.

I would not put my child in a school where Creationism was taught as science. Nor should I be required to. But unless those who want to teach Creationism as science are allowed to do so, then there is no freedom. Unless we the people are free to govern ourselves and form whatever sorts of society we wish to have, then the Constitution is moot. That means that those who want a Mayberry USA should be allowed to have that but it should not be able to dictate to Deadwood who wants no part of that.

THAT is the principle involved. DOMA is a separate issue that is discussed ad nauseum as a separate issue. But it is only one of thousands of concepts and issues that factor into what freedom actually is. As a free person, I should be able to embrace anything I believe fully and form societies with like minded people so long as unalienable rights are not violated. I should not be able to dictate what sort of society you and your like minded associates would choose to organize and you and yours should also leave me and mine in peace.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on that, Foxfyre. With the exception of Clinton signing it for compromise, and a couple of conservative blue-dogs on the left voting for it, DOMA belongs to the Republicans and the Republicans are the party of the conservatives.

Extremist Conservatives are just as interested in pushing their agenda from the top down as extremist Progressives.

The problem is extremism, exclusion and intolerance. I so look forward to the day when reasonable Conservatives are as incensed by the extremism and intolerance in their own party as they are by the intolerant whackos on the left.

News flash Joe, this is NOT about Republicans or Democrats. There are liberal and conservative Republicans; liberal and conservative Democrats. What is conservative/classical liberal as it is understood in America today is an idea, a concept, a conviction that in order to be free, we must first have our rights secured, and then we must be able to live our lives as we choose without interference from a central government authority.

The Founders risked all that they owned, their blood, their treasure, their loved ones, their very lives to free us from monarchs, popes, or other authorities who would assign us the rights we would have, the beliefs we were required to profess, the lifestyle we would live.

So tolerance is a two way street. To deny another his intolerance, short of denying unalienable rights, is in itself a freedom robbing intolerance. There must be as much freedom to scorn and distrust the religious, for example, as there must be freedom to scorn and distrust the Atheist. And neither should be able to require the other to adopt or respect his/her point of view, much less adopt it.

The conservative may abhor another's prejudices, but knows that freedom requires us to not interfere with the other person's prejudices except when they deny others their unalienable rights. The Westboro Baptists, for instance, are held in utter contempt, but will be left alone in their narrow minded hatefulness. They will be resisted, however, when they attempt to force that narrow minded hatefulness on others.

But even as they too condemn a group like the Westboro Baptist, the modern American liberal too often demands that others accept their version of virtue or morality. Thus they see no problem with attempting to destroy the livelihood and peace of a Rush Limbaugh or a Chick fil a or a Paula Deen when such people fail to measure up to the liberal's version of what morality and/or virtue is. There is no live and let live--no tolerance--no understanding of what real liberty is--in most of the modern liberals' world. And to make matters worse the modern day liberal is rarely consistent. They are excessively selective in who will be forced to conform or who will punished if they do not, and reserve their contempt and coercion for those with whom they do not feel ideologically compatible.

And for those of us conservatives/classical liberals who see it as a dangerous thing for government to dictate to us how we must live our lives, it is only a natural consequence that we would hold in contempt a liberalism that would also dictate to us how we must think, how we must believe, how we must speak, how we must live our lives. The contempt is not for what the liberal believes. The contempt is for what the liberal would force upon everybody else by whatever means deemed necessary.

Herein lies your problem. You keep blaming liberals for things they are not responsible for. Much of which conservatives are to blame.

Example, Rush Limbaugh and Paula Deen's problem is with corporate sponsors.

 

[AVG-JOE]

DOMA is not conservative or liberal ideology. It is a concept that people either agree with or they don't. Same as abortion or public nudity or whether there should be a creche on a courthouse lawn. Classical liberalism/modern American conservatism may or may not embrace any of the social issues, but believes it wrong for the federal government to be involved with that in any form other than to defend those who must be allowed the right to embrace whatever points of view they wish to embrace short of violating the rights of others.

I would not put my child in a school where Creationism was taught as science. Nor should I be required to. But unless those who want to teach Creationism as science are allowed to do so, then there is no freedom. Unless we the people are free to govern ourselves and form whatever sorts of society we wish to have, then the Constitution is moot. That means that those who want a Mayberry USA should be allowed to have that but it should not be able to dictate to Deadwood who wants no part of that.

THAT is the principle involved. DOMA is a separate issue that is discussed ad nauseum as a separate issue. But it is only one of thousands of concepts and issues that factor into what freedom actually is. As a free person, I should be able to embrace anything I believe fully and form societies with like minded people so long as unalienable rights are not violated. I should not be able to dictate what sort of society you and your like minded associates would choose to organize and you and yours should also leave me and mine in peace.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on that, Foxfyre. With the exception of Clinton signing it for compromise, and a couple of conservative blue-dogs on the left voting for it, DOMA belongs to the Republicans and the Republicans are the party of the conservatives.

Extremist Conservatives are just as interested in pushing their agenda from the top down as extremist Progressives.

The problem is extremism, exclusion and intolerance. I so look forward to the day when reasonable Conservatives are as incensed by the extremism and intolerance in their own party as they are by the intolerant whackos on the left.

You are FOS. Anti-Gay is the hate and fear felt by the anti-gay crowd. Just because the democrats switch their view on gays every year does not give them the credit for being pro-gay. That the is dumbest opinion I've ever read on this board. Most conservatives did not like Romney. Romney was anti-gay rights... Hated him for that and many other reasons. Romney was a progressive liberal posing as a republican. I'm a constitutional conservative christian heterosexual and did not vote for Romney. Pull my finger jerk.

And right on schedule... Cue the intolerant conservative red-neck.

​

 

[AVG-JOE]

DOMA is not conservative or liberal ideology. It is a concept that people either agree with or they don't. Same as abortion or public nudity or whether there should be a creche on a courthouse lawn. Classical liberalism/modern American conservatism may or may not embrace any of the social issues, but believes it wrong for the federal government to be involved with that in any form other than to defend those who must be allowed the right to embrace whatever points of view they wish to embrace short of violating the rights of others.

I would not put my child in a school where Creationism was taught as science. Nor should I be required to. But unless those who want to teach Creationism as science are allowed to do so, then there is no freedom. Unless we the people are free to govern ourselves and form whatever sorts of society we wish to have, then the Constitution is moot. That means that those who want a Mayberry USA should be allowed to have that but it should not be able to dictate to Deadwood who wants no part of that.

THAT is the principle involved. DOMA is a separate issue that is discussed ad nauseum as a separate issue. But it is only one of thousands of concepts and issues that factor into what freedom actually is. As a free person, I should be able to embrace anything I believe fully and form societies with like minded people so long as unalienable rights are not violated. I should not be able to dictate what sort of society you and your like minded associates would choose to organize and you and yours should also leave me and mine in peace.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on that, Foxfyre. With the exception of Clinton signing it for compromise, and a couple of conservative blue-dogs on the left voting for it, DOMA belongs to the Republicans and the Republicans are the party of the conservatives.

Extremist Conservatives are just as interested in pushing their agenda from the top down as extremist Progressives.

The problem is extremism, exclusion and intolerance. I so look forward to the day when reasonable Conservatives are as incensed by the extremism and intolerance in their own party as they are by the intolerant whackos on the left.

News flash Joe, this is NOT about Republicans or Democrats. There are liberal and conservative Republicans; liberal and conservative Democrats. What is conservative/classical liberal as it is understood in America today is an idea, a concept, a conviction that in order to be free, we must first have our rights secured, and then we must be able to live our lives as we choose without interference from a central government authority.

The Founders risked all that they owned, their blood, their treasure, their loved ones, their very lives to free us from monarchs, popes, or other authorities who would assign us the rights we would have, the beliefs we were required to profess, the lifestyle we would live.

So tolerance is a two way street. To deny another his intolerance, short of denying unalienable rights, is in itself a freedom robbing intolerance. There must be as much freedom to scorn and distrust the religious, for example, as there must be freedom to scorn and distrust the Atheist. And neither should be able to require the other to adopt or respect his/her point of view, much less adopt it.

The conservative may abhor another's prejudices, but knows that freedom requires us to not interfere with the other person's prejudices except when they deny others their unalienable rights. The Westboro Baptists, for instance, are held in utter contempt, but will be left alone in their narrow minded hatefulness. They will be resisted, however, when they attempt to force that narrow minded hatefulness on others.

But even as they too condemn a group like the Westboro Baptist, the modern American liberal too often demands that others accept their version of virtue or morality. Thus they see no problem with attempting to destroy the livelihood and peace of a Rush Limbaugh or a Chick fil a or a Paula Deen when such people fail to measure up to the liberal's version of what morality and/or virtue is. There is no live and let live--no tolerance--no understanding of what real liberty is--in most of the modern liberals' world. And to make matters worse the modern day liberal is rarely consistent. They are excessively selective in who will be forced to conform or who will punished if they do not, and reserve their contempt and coercion for those with whom they do not feel ideologically compatible.

And for those of us conservatives/classical liberals who see it as a dangerous thing for government to dictate to us how we must live our lives, it is only a natural consequence that we would hold in contempt a liberalism that would also dictate to us how we must think, how we must believe, how we must speak, how we must live our lives. The contempt is not for what the liberal believes. The contempt is for what the liberal would force upon everybody else by whatever means deemed necessary.

A little tolerance for my lifestyle is all I've ever asked...

 

[Foxfyre]

We're going to have to agree to disagree on that, Foxfyre. With the exception of Clinton signing it for compromise, and a couple of conservative blue-dogs on the left voting for it, DOMA belongs to the Republicans and the Republicans are the party of the conservatives.

Extremist Conservatives are just as interested in pushing their agenda from the top down as extremist Progressives.

The problem is extremism, exclusion and intolerance. I so look forward to the day when reasonable Conservatives are as incensed by the extremism and intolerance in their own party as they are by the intolerant whackos on the left.

News flash Joe, this is NOT about Republicans or Democrats. There are liberal and conservative Republicans; liberal and conservative Democrats. What is conservative/classical liberal as it is understood in America today is an idea, a concept, a conviction that in order to be free, we must first have our rights secured, and then we must be able to live our lives as we choose without interference from a central government authority.

The Founders risked all that they owned, their blood, their treasure, their loved ones, their very lives to free us from monarchs, popes, or other authorities who would assign us the rights we would have, the beliefs we were required to profess, the lifestyle we would live.

So tolerance is a two way street. To deny another his intolerance, short of denying unalienable rights, is in itself a freedom robbing intolerance. There must be as much freedom to scorn and distrust the religious, for example, as there must be freedom to scorn and distrust the Atheist. And neither should be able to require the other to adopt or respect his/her point of view, much less adopt it.

The conservative may abhor another's prejudices, but knows that freedom requires us to not interfere with the other person's prejudices except when they deny others their unalienable rights. The Westboro Baptists, for instance, are held in utter contempt, but will be left alone in their narrow minded hatefulness. They will be resisted, however, when they attempt to force that narrow minded hatefulness on others.

But even as they too condemn a group like the Westboro Baptist, the modern American liberal too often demands that others accept their version of virtue or morality. Thus they see no problem with attempting to destroy the livelihood and peace of a Rush Limbaugh or a Chick fil a or a Paula Deen when such people fail to measure up to the liberal's version of what morality and/or virtue is. There is no live and let live--no tolerance--no understanding of what real liberty is--in most of the modern liberals' world. And to make matters worse the modern day liberal is rarely consistent. They are excessively selective in who will be forced to conform or who will punished if they do not, and reserve their contempt and coercion for those with whom they do not feel ideologically compatible.

And for those of us conservatives/classical liberals who see it as a dangerous thing for government to dictate to us how we must live our lives, it is only a natural consequence that we would hold in contempt a liberalism that would also dictate to us how we must think, how we must believe, how we must speak, how we must live our lives. The contempt is not for what the liberal believes. The contempt is for what the liberal would force upon everybody else by whatever means deemed necessary.

A little tolerance for my lifestyle is all I've ever asked...

As have I. But the conservative knows that tolerance and acceptance are separate things. To expect others to tolerate and allow my opinions, language, lifestyle that affects them in no way is a reasonable expectation. To expect others to accept/approve/accommodate my opinions, language and/or lfestyle is not.

And to seek to punish me, destroy me, damage my business or livelihood because you don't like a word I used or don't like my attitude or convictions about something is not only the antithesis of liberty, but it is evil.

 

[Bfgrn]

News flash Joe, this is NOT about Republicans or Democrats. There are liberal and conservative Republicans; liberal and conservative Democrats. What is conservative/classical liberal as it is understood in America today is an idea, a concept, a conviction that in order to be free, we must first have our rights secured, and then we must be able to live our lives as we choose without interference from a central government authority.

The Founders risked all that they owned, their blood, their treasure, their loved ones, their very lives to free us from monarchs, popes, or other authorities who would assign us the rights we would have, the beliefs we were required to profess, the lifestyle we would live.

So tolerance is a two way street. To deny another his intolerance, short of denying unalienable rights, is in itself a freedom robbing intolerance. There must be as much freedom to scorn and distrust the religious, for example, as there must be freedom to scorn and distrust the Atheist. And neither should be able to require the other to adopt or respect his/her point of view, much less adopt it.

The conservative may abhor another's prejudices, but knows that freedom requires us to not interfere with the other person's prejudices except when they deny others their unalienable rights. The Westboro Baptists, for instance, are held in utter contempt, but will be left alone in their narrow minded hatefulness. They will be resisted, however, when they attempt to force that narrow minded hatefulness on others.

But even as they too condemn a group like the Westboro Baptist, the modern American liberal too often demands that others accept their version of virtue or morality. Thus they see no problem with attempting to destroy the livelihood and peace of a Rush Limbaugh or a Chick fil a or a Paula Deen when such people fail to measure up to the liberal's version of what morality and/or virtue is. There is no live and let live--no tolerance--no understanding of what real liberty is--in most of the modern liberals' world. And to make matters worse the modern day liberal is rarely consistent. They are excessively selective in who will be forced to conform or who will punished if they do not, and reserve their contempt and coercion for those with whom they do not feel ideologically compatible.

And for those of us conservatives/classical liberals who see it as a dangerous thing for government to dictate to us how we must live our lives, it is only a natural consequence that we would hold in contempt a liberalism that would also dictate to us how we must think, how we must believe, how we must speak, how we must live our lives. The contempt is not for what the liberal believes. The contempt is for what the liberal would force upon everybody else by whatever means deemed necessary.

A little tolerance for my lifestyle is all I've ever asked...

As have I. But the conservative knows that tolerance and acceptance are separate things. To expect others to tolerate and allow my opinions, language, lifestyle that affects them in no way is a reasonable expectation. To expect others to accept/approve/accommodate my opinions, language and/or lfestyle is not.

And to seek to punish me, destroy me, damage my business or livelihood because you don't like a word I used or don't like my attitude or convictions about something is not only the antithesis of liberty, but it is evil.

SO...liberals are allowed to vehemently disagree with someone like Rush Limbaugh, just as long as they do it SILENTLY.

 

[Pogo]

News flash Joe, this is NOT about Republicans or Democrats. There are liberal and conservative Republicans; liberal and conservative Democrats. What is conservative/classical liberal as it is understood in America today is an idea, a concept, a conviction that in order to be free, we must first have our rights secured, and then we must be able to live our lives as we choose without interference from a central government authority.

The Founders risked all that they owned, their blood, their treasure, their loved ones, their very lives to free us from monarchs, popes, or other authorities who would assign us the rights we would have, the beliefs we were required to profess, the lifestyle we would live.

So tolerance is a two way street. To deny another his intolerance, short of denying unalienable rights, is in itself a freedom robbing intolerance. There must be as much freedom to scorn and distrust the religious, for example, as there must be freedom to scorn and distrust the Atheist. And neither should be able to require the other to adopt or respect his/her point of view, much less adopt it.

The conservative may abhor another's prejudices, but knows that freedom requires us to not interfere with the other person's prejudices except when they deny others their unalienable rights. The Westboro Baptists, for instance, are held in utter contempt, but will be left alone in their narrow minded hatefulness. They will be resisted, however, when they attempt to force that narrow minded hatefulness on others.

But even as they too condemn a group like the Westboro Baptist, the modern American liberal too often demands that others accept their version of virtue or morality. Thus they see no problem with attempting to destroy the livelihood and peace of a Rush Limbaugh or a Chick fil a or a Paula Deen when such people fail to measure up to the liberal's version of what morality and/or virtue is. There is no live and let live--no tolerance--no understanding of what real liberty is--in most of the modern liberals' world. And to make matters worse the modern day liberal is rarely consistent. They are excessively selective in who will be forced to conform or who will punished if they do not, and reserve their contempt and coercion for those with whom they do not feel ideologically compatible.

And for those of us conservatives/classical liberals who see it as a dangerous thing for government to dictate to us how we must live our lives, it is only a natural consequence that we would hold in contempt a liberalism that would also dictate to us how we must think, how we must believe, how we must speak, how we must live our lives. The contempt is not for what the liberal believes. The contempt is for what the liberal would force upon everybody else by whatever means deemed necessary.

A little tolerance for my lifestyle is all I've ever asked...

As have I. But the conservative knows that tolerance and acceptance are separate things. To expect others to tolerate and allow my opinions, language, lifestyle that affects them in no way is a reasonable expectation. To expect others to accept/approve/accommodate my opinions, language and/or lfestyle is not.

And to seek to punish me, destroy me, damage my business or livelihood because you don't like a word I used or don't like my attitude or convictions about something is not only the antithesis of liberty, but it is evil.

The top paragraph needs a rewrite to make a coherent sentence but from what I gather you're not talking about "evil", or liberty, or politics. You're talking about social mores, as expressed through the free market. That's not legislation.

The reverse of what you're bemoaning would be to require consumers to buy things they don't want. Good luck with that...

 

[Foxfyre]

A little tolerance for my lifestyle is all I've ever asked...

As have I. But the conservative knows that tolerance and acceptance are separate things. To expect others to tolerate and allow my opinions, language, lifestyle that affects them in no way is a reasonable expectation. To expect others to accept/approve/accommodate my opinions, language and/or lfestyle is not.

And to seek to punish me, destroy me, damage my business or livelihood because you don't like a word I used or don't like my attitude or convictions about something is not only the antithesis of liberty, but it is evil.

The top paragraph needs a rewrite to make a coherent sentence but from what I gather you're not talking about "evil", or liberty, or politics. You're talking about social mores, as expressed through the free market. That's not legislation.

The reverse of what you're bemoaning would be to require consumers to buy things they don't want. Good luck with that...

It is coherant, with a little punctuation, but to rephrase: as a conservative/classical liberal, I see freedom as having the right to my thoughts, opinions, language, and/or lifestyle that does not affect you in any way. Tolerance does not require you to accept, endorse, appreciate, emulate, or respect my thoughts, opinions, language, and/or lifestyle. It only requires you to not interfere.

And I am not talking about social mores being evil. What is evil is Citizen A intentionally trying to harm or punish or destroy Citizen B for no other reason than Citizen B uses words or expresses opinions or endorses a lifestyle that Citizen A does not like or accept.

I don't care whether a person is Republican, Democrat, a little green man from Mars, or what label he puts on himself. To attempt to destroy somebody who has not violated anybody's rights is evil and is the antithesis of what liberty is.

 

[Pogo]

As have I. But the conservative knows that tolerance and acceptance are separate things. To expect others to tolerate and allow my opinions, language, lifestyle that affects them in no way is a reasonable expectation. To expect others to accept/approve/accommodate my opinions, language and/or lfestyle is not.

And to seek to punish me, destroy me, damage my business or livelihood because you don't like a word I used or don't like my attitude or convictions about something is not only the antithesis of liberty, but it is evil.

The top paragraph needs a rewrite to make a coherent sentence but from what I gather you're not talking about "evil", or liberty, or politics. You're talking about social mores, as expressed through the free market. That's not legislation.

The reverse of what you're bemoaning would be to require consumers to buy things they don't want. Good luck with that...

It is coherant, with a little punctuation, but to rephrase: as a conservative/classical liberal, I see freedom as having the right to my thoughts, opinions, language, and/or lifestyle that does not affect you in any way. Tolerance does not require you to accept, endorse, appreciate, emulate, or respect my thoughts, opinions, language, and/or lifestyle. It only requires you to not interfere.

And I am not talking about social mores being evil. What is evil is Citizen A intentionally trying to harm or punish or destroy Citizen B for no other reason than Citizen B uses words or expresses opinions or endorses a lifestyle that Citizen A does not like or accept.

I don't care whether a person is Republican, Democrat, a little green man from Mars, or what label he puts on himself. To attempt to destroy somebody who has not violated anybody's rights is evil and is the antithesis of what liberty is.

OK I agree with the revised, of course. I think we're all good with that.

The second part, still not sure what you're getting at. Can you give an example of "attempting to destroy"?

 

[Foxfyre]

The top paragraph needs a rewrite to make a coherent sentence but from what I gather you're not talking about "evil", or liberty, or politics. You're talking about social mores, as expressed through the free market. That's not legislation.

The reverse of what you're bemoaning would be to require consumers to buy things they don't want. Good luck with that...

It is coherant, with a little punctuation, but to rephrase: as a conservative/classical liberal, I see freedom as having the right to my thoughts, opinions, language, and/or lifestyle that does not affect you in any way. Tolerance does not require you to accept, endorse, appreciate, emulate, or respect my thoughts, opinions, language, and/or lifestyle. It only requires you to not interfere.

And I am not talking about social mores being evil. What is evil is Citizen A intentionally trying to harm or punish or destroy Citizen B for no other reason than Citizen B uses words or expresses opinions or endorses a lifestyle that Citizen A does not like or accept.

I don't care whether a person is Republican, Democrat, a little green man from Mars, or what label he puts on himself. To attempt to destroy somebody who has not violated anybody's rights is evil and is the antithesis of what liberty is.

OK I agree with the revised, of course. I think we're all good with that.

The second part, still not sure what you're getting at. Can you give an example of "attempting to destroy"?

I gave you three:
Rush Limbaugh
Chick fil a
Paula Deen

 

[Trajan]

what I see in this thread , appears to me at least to be the ole my shit don't stank syndrome and the lost art of separation…..

Now, someone’s opinion is not wrong in that it is an OPINION. It seems that when you are argue a viewpoint you are arguing for your opinion, as in ideology and using what facts you may want to employ buttressing why you think your view is, not so much superior but, more valid in that debate(?).

Facts that are made or refuted don’t seem to really mean much on the net, if someone bases an argument on what appears to be a false fact, ideology seems to take over…..if that persons ideology is stronger then their ability to parse a fact and/or honesty, to say yea, “ you’re right there” , separation is lost, the debate becomes; “ you’re a lib or con DB and since libs/cons are ___________anyway, you’re wrong”.

That dovetails into the; ‘my crap don’t stank ‘ side of the debate where in folks post examples of libs or cons making remarks that are hurtful, pejorative etc. a sign held at a rally becomes the mouthpiece of the entire group…..where really, examples of dopes with signage from the ‘other side’ exist but when posted too, are now, all of a sudden not representative of that group, its only YOUR group that gets characterized by same. It cannot be both.

And in the end, what I see to is [that] there doesn’t seem to be acceptance, hell, even recognition of or there exists genuine, intellectual or heartfelt, moral or ethical objection(s) , that doesn’t get labeled as ‘hateful’. Simple examples, if you are for Obamacare you’re a statist Obamabot, if your opposed to gay marriage, you’re a homophobe.

 

[Foxfyre]

what I see in this thread , appears to me at least to be the ole my shit don't stank syndrome and the lost art of separation…..

Now, someone’s opinion is not wrong in that an OPINION. It seems that when you are argue a viewpoint you are arguing for your opinion, as in ideology and using what facts you may want to employ buttressing why you think your view is, not so much superior but, more valid in that debate(?).

Facts that are made or refuted don’t seem to really mean much on the net, if someone bases an argument on what appears to be a false fact, ideology seems to take over…..if that persons ideology is stronger then their ability to parse a fact and/or honesty, to say yea, “ you’re right there” , separation is lost, the debate becomes; “ you’re a lib or con DB and since libs/cons are ___________anyway, you’re wrong”.

That dovetails into the; ‘my crap don’t stank ‘ side of the debate where in folks post examples of libs or cons making remarks that are hurtful, pejorative etc. a sign held at a rally becomes the mouthpiece of the entire group…..where really, examples of dopes with signage from the ‘other side’ exist but when posted too, are now, all of a sudden not representative of that group, its only YOUR group that gets characterized by same. It cannot be both.

And in the end, what I see to is [that] there doesn’t seem to be acceptance, hell, even recognition of or there exists genuine, intellectual or heartfelt, moral or ethical objection(s) , that doesn’t get labeled as ‘hateful’. Simple examples, if you are for Obamacare you’re a statist Obamabot, if your opposed to gay marriage, you’re a homophobe.

It's worse than that Traj.

Just on the issue of gay rights alone:

In a recent prior argument on this thread, I expressed my conviction that people who want a Mayberry USA should be able to have that. But that was immediately translated as somehow favoring DOMA and therefore was homophobic or extremist.

If I say that a modern conservative/classical liberal sees value in traditional marriage, that will immediately be translated as anti-gay marriage and/or homophobic and/or hateful.

If I point out that the presence of mostly traditional families, churches, and conservative concepts will more often than not produce a more stable, more safe, neighborhood, increased prosperity, and higher achievements in education, that will also be labeled as anti-gay, homophobic, hateful, extremist.

From the more entrenched, more radical modern Left, there is no tolerance for any view other than the politically correct one of the current week, month, or year. Which is one reason that modern American liberalism is often seen in such a negative light.

 

[numan]

...as a conservative/classical liberal, I see freedom as having the right to my thoughts, opinions, language, and/or lifestyle that does not affect you in any way.

And your last phrase is an escape hatch for evil big enough to drive a truck through.

In the complexity of modern society, it is almost impossible to do anything that does not affect other people.

I will give you a concrete example. I live in a beautiful, scenic area. The housing in my neighborhood was designed and built in the more socially responsible 1950's. A great deal of thought and care went into building so as to give every house a view of the ocean and hills.

Recently, an executive of an oil company, no doubt paid more than he was worth, bought a house nearby, demolished it, and, by clever manipulation of construction and the zoning regulations (and, I suspect, by money passing under the table to the inspectors) he built a "monster house" which blocked off the ocean view of three houses, and reduced the value of these properties. My view was not affected, but I and my neighbors were disgusted by the arrogance and thoughtlessness of this interloping clod. We all took to calling his house the "view dam." As you may expect, we all gave him the cold shoulder, and he has since moved away, but the damage was done. And, to add insult to injury, the extra height of his construction served no useful purpose; it was not an extra floor, but pure, empty space -- no doubt meant to give an interior impression of lofty space.

The "freedom" of this vain, vulgar cad very much affected three of my neighbors. He cannot be sued for the damage he did; people like him make the laws -- to suit their own convenience!

Examples like this can be multiplied by millions of times in a complex society -- and your antiquated, childish, ill thought-out notions of "freedom"
collapse utterly in such a society.
.